it hath not been given lawfully." There can be no doubt, therefore, of the opinion of Bishop Fell, while we have that of St. Augustine before

us.*

Mr. Blunt thinks it is hard to gain the opinion of ARCHBISHOP POTTER; but, surely, the following sentences do not need an interpreter: "It was the common opinion, that laymen may lawfully baptize in cases of extreme danger. Neither can any instance be produced where this practice was condemned by any Council, or so much as found fault with by any of the primitive Fathers; unless, perhaps, St. Basil......... However, his judgment is less to be regarded, because he defends the error of Cyprian and Firmilian, which had long before been condemned and exploded by the Church." (Works, vol. ii., pp. 236, 237.) Now, when it is remembered, that the Archbishop's avowed design in the treatise quoted was to exhibit the government of the Church, chiefly as described in Scripture, and in the writings of the three first centuries, the examination of which he thought to be the best method of ascertaining the sense of Scripture; it appears to me impossible to doubt as to what his

* Bishop JEREMY TAYLOR has sometimes

opinion was.

No honest man, who

disbelieved the validity of lay-baptism, could have written the passage quoted above.

66

BISHOP GIBSON's opinion is peculiarly valuable, both because he is known to have been well skilled in ecclesiastical law and usage, and a strict disciplinarian in his diocess; and also because the advocates for the invalidity of lay-baptism rely much upon his declaration, already quoted in this article, that, after the Hampton-Court Conference, the Liturgy was so altered as expressly to exclude it." We have, in the former article, appealed to his recorded acts while Archdeacon of Surrey, in proof that he did not consider the alterations of the Liturgy as tantamount to a declaration of the doctrine of the Church: we have seen him protesting, in Convocation, against the refusal of the document sent down by the Bishops: we have now to see him as a Bishop, expressly disavowing the doctrine for which Mr. Blunt contends. On the 20th of October, 1738, Mr. John Wesley and his brother Charles waited on Dr. Gibson, then Bishop of London, to answer some complaints which he had heard against them; and the following conversation then took place. The Bishop said, "There is a heavy charge

lay-baptism; but without sufficient reason, as the following extract will show:-"St. Augustine did not know whether baptism administered by a layman should be repeated or no.

He knew

not, nor do I. But Simeon of Thessalonica is confident that the baptism is null. I cannot say so; nor can I say, let it be received." (Div. Inst.

sequence of your having re-baptized an adult, and alleged the Archbishop's authority for doing it." Mr. J. Wesley answered, that he had expressly declared the contrary, and

passage of St. Augustine, referred to here, is designated by the words, Nescio an piè quispiam, &c.; and it is therefore evident that the good Bishop has mistaken the meaning of the Father, who does not intend to intimate his doubts, but rather his certainty. He is so sure himself, that he doubts whether any good man can doubt on the subject. My object, however, in introducing this quotation is, not to set Bishop Taylor right; but to show that the maintainers of the invalidity of lay-baptism have no right to call him as a witness on their side, or, at least, that his testimony will not be of much service to them. He

says strong things in the Ductor Dubitantium against the lawfulness of lay-baptism; but declines there, as in the place before us, to give a direct opinion against its validity. Doubtless he

felt it was a serious thing to differ from the

whole Christian world.

VOL. XX. Third Series.

Ꭰ

me to baptize her, not being satisfied with her baptism by a Dissenter. She says, 'Sure and unsure is not the same.' He immediately took fire, and interrupted me: 'I WHOLLY DISAPPROVE OF IT; it is irregular.' "A sharp discussion ensued on the form in which notice of adult baptisms ought to be given to the Bishop, which it is not needful to insert here, and the conversation ended thus: "Do you, then, dispense with my giving you notice of any baptism in future?'

'I

neither dispense, nor not dispense.' He then censured 'Lawrence on Lay-Baptism;' and, after some other matters had been discussed, added, 'Well, Sir, you knew my judgment before, and you know it now: good morning to you.' Those readers who are acquainted with the history of the Wesleys, will read these passages without surprise; and will be thankful that more extensive experience abated those prejudices which are here so manifest, and enabled them to throw off the shackles with which, in their earlier years, they were, at the same time, so much delighted and so much oppressed. It is a curious fact, that high Church principles, as they are called, often bring men into collision with their Bishops; and more than one instance might be adduced, in which some of the present rulers of the Church have received quite as disrespectful treatment from ultra Episcopalians, as Bishop Gibson did from the two Wesleys a hundred years ago.

I will only add to these testimonies that of the last living Prelate who has published anything on the subject; premising, however, that the reason why but one modern authority is adduced is simply this, that I have not time to transcribe, nor you space to insert, more. The BISHOP OF ROCHESTER, in his Charge, delivered in July, 1840, expresses himself thus: "I wish to caution you against an error into which several

The full particulars of this interview, in which the Bishop appears to great advantage, will be found in Moore's "Life of Wesley," vol. i., pp. 420-422.

of the Clergy in other diocesses have fallen, in refusing the rites of Christian burial to persons who have been baptized by Dissenting Ministers. It it a conscientious scruple, deserving of every respect; but it cannot be defended on the principles admitted by our Church, nor with reference to the civil and ecclesiastical laws. Baptism by Dissenting Ministers is held to be valid, (nay, even by a layman, when this rite could not otherwise have been obtained,) provided the matter and form shall have been duly observed; that is to say, that the person has been baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." (P. 16.)

I cannot pass on to the last subject, of which I purpose to treat in this communication, without observing that though Mr. Blunt has published several extracts from English Divines, with the view of corroborating his opinions, and of marking, as he says, the change of feeling which is observable in the Church since the discovery of the genuine remains of Ignatius, he has not been able to produce more than two or three who affirm the nullity of lay-baptism. These are Beveridge, Waterland, and Mant. Usher,

Of the ritualists I have said nothing. WHEATLEY is well known to advocate the views of the re-baptizers. But against him we may quote NICHOLLS, who, in a tract in vindication of the Prayer-Book, printed at the end of his Commentary, (fol., 1710,) quotes and adopts the language of Hooker on the subject of lay-baptism; and SHEPHERD, who speaks with great plainness and decision in our favour. His argument is, that the Bishops ordain upon Dissenting baptisms; and that the Ecclesiastical Courts could not proceed against Dissenters, unless they were accounted Christians; which they could not be if their baptisms were invalid. PALMER says, (Orig. Liturg, ii., p. 195,) "It is unnecessary for me to enter on the discussion, relative to the proper Minister of baptism, which has been treated with his usual learning by Bingham, in his Scholastical History of LayBaptism."" COMBER is silent as to the Minister of baptism; but his remark on the rubric of the Burial Office plainly shows that he did not understand it as Mr. Blunt does. He says, the use of the Office is denied to infants who are not yet admitted into the Church by baptism. He should have added, and to those, who, though they have been sprinkled by a Dissenter, are still out of the Church, not having received a valid baptism; and would have added this had be

Bramhall, Hammond, Jer. Taylor, Leslie, Wilson, and Comber, are quoted on the exclusive right of the Clergy to adininister the sacraments; but this is not the point in dispute. Mr. Blunt labours to show, (page 200,) that Bramhall should not be quoted on the side of those who maintain the validity of lay-baptism; but he is candid enough to confess that he does not "know of one passage in the works of that great Divine" which furnishes direct evidence in favour of the opinion which he holds. I would go further, and say, that Bramhall could not believe the invalidity of lay-baptism, and express himself as he does in the short passage quoted in my former letter. He there argues that martyrdom cannot be properly called a baptism, and proceeds to give his reasons for thinking so; but, had he been of Mr. Blunt's opinion, he must have been stopped at the threshold of his argument, by the recollection that martyrdom is never administered but by lay-hands. Priests, indeed, (to their shame be it spoken,) have contrived and decreed it; but we never heard of one who executed it. On the whole, then, I conclude, rotwithstanding the efforts of Mr. Blunt to array a host of writers against us, that the testimony of the witnesses adduced before, with the addition of those now brought forward, may serve to satisfy any reasonable man, that the sense of the Church is in favour of the validity of lay-baptism. Nor is it possible for those who advocate this side of the question, to lay too much stress upon the admission of Waterland, ("unwilling evidence, and therefore strong," "I take the case to be, that THE PRACTICE of the ChurCH,

AS WELL AS THE STREAM OF HER

DIVINES, HAS ALL ALONG BEEN AGAINST US."

Your readers will have seen, from the beginning, that the work, which

believed it. Further, he says, this denial of burial to unbaptized infants is intended to make the parents careful to bring them to baptism. He should have added, and also to make them careful to entrust the administration only to those in whose hands it may be effectual.

has called forth these observations is not a simple inquiry into the sense of the established Church; but one which aims at a practical result. It has, indeed, in the first instance, an apologetic character. The preface informs us, that the author was "anxious to explain to many, who misunderstood his motives, the grounds on which he refused burial to a Dissenter's child, in a distant diocess, several months ago." But it has a further object, and that is, to induce as many of the Clergy as he may be able, to go and do likewise. Accordingly, Mr. Blunt spares no pains to convince his clerical brethren, that they are not bound to obey the law, as laid down by Sir J. Nicholl. "The judgment" of that Right Honour able person, "in the case of Kemp . Wickes," has generally been held in high esteem; both by the profession to which he belonged, and by the public at large. It is only the other day, that Mr. Starkie, one of the Professors of Law in the University of Cambridge, spoke of it, as "a high authority, in point of reason, as well as law." But Mr. Blunt has persuaded himself, and would fain persuade his brethren, into a widely different opinion; and seems as little inclined to treat it with deference in his study at Exeter, as he was when he refused burial to the Dissenter's child in a distant diocess. It deals, he says, in assertions which are "utterly false," in groundless allegations; discusses the question before the Court, rather in the manner of an advocate than a Judge; and shows the author to have been a prejudiced person, "grossly ignorant of theolog gy, and of the canon law, and comparatively ignorant of the statute law." Your readers will not desire any further specimen of Mr. Blunt's talent for vituperation, I am sure; but he has

nication against us, if he please! or, perhaps, we should rather say, if he can !

Mr. Blunt thinks, that the history of the first rubric of the Burial Office confirms his view of its meaning. It was introduced, he tells us, in 1661, to meet the objections that were made against the indiscriminate use of the Service. True. But by whom were those objections tendered? Only by the Presbyterians. (Cardwell's Conf., p. 333.) Upon Mr. Blunt's hypothesis, this rubric would have had the effect of excluding from burial the very men who had been appointed, by a royal commission, to revise the Book of Common Prayer; and one of whom had just before been made a Bishop.* Manton, Calamy, Baxter, Jacomb, Lightfoot, Bates, and Newcomen, and the rest, were all, ipsis factis, excommunicate. Did the rubric, made after consultation with them, consign them to the infamy which awaited the suicide? He that can believe this, is welcome to believe it. It is deeply to be regretted, that Mr. Blunt has mooted the question of excommunication. The only effect of the discussion is, to wound the friends of the Establishment, and to afford a triumph to her enemies, by setting before them the inefficiency of her discipline. Can anything be more absurd than Mr. Blunt's out cry against "the persecution" which the Clergy endure, in being compelled to read the Office over an infant baptized in a Methodist chapel, when it is notorious that the same Office is used for the murderer at the gallows? Upon his own principles, in relation to heretical baptism, Mr. Blunt ought not to refuse burial to a child, unless it was of an age to have sought for confirmation, and had neglected, or refused, to do so. And the simplest dictates of common sense would assure Mr. Blunt, that there was much less danger of blasphemy in thanking God that he had received

*This was Dr. Reynolds, who, though a Bishop, was named one of the managers of the Savoy Conference, on the part of the Presbyterians; and who had been a member of the Assembly of Divines, and had taken the Covenant.

the soul of an infant, under any circumstances, than in offering up the same acknowledgment on behalf of an adult parishioner, who, though he might have been a communicant, might also have been a hypocrite.

Mr. Blunt feels it a great hardship, that the decisions of a layman should be binding in an ecclesiastical matter. He prays and longs for a "Synod," in which this question may be determined by Bishops only; he charges the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts as a crime upon the Church; speaks of it as one of the results of her "having committed fornication with the Kings of the earth;" and exhorts her to refuse "the help of Egypt," and trust in the grace of God. In the pages of Towgood, or Conder, or in the "Library of Ecclesiastical Knowledge," all this would appear natural enough: when we find it in the work of a high Churchman, it is, at least, curious to observe how extremes meet. I wish the coincidence may not be ominous of evil.

66

The great practical question, however, between Mr. Blunt and the Methodists, is, In what sense are we to understand the rubric in the Burial Office; and, more particularly, the word unbaptized?" Since the expression is declared to be capable of two senses, let us ascertain, if possible, in what sense the parties who first used it understood it. Now, in the course of this article, and that inserted in the Magazine for November last, means are afforded for the determination of this question.

It appears,

The

from Dr. Cardwell, (Conferences, p. 371, et seq.,) that the revision of the Liturgy in 1661 was the work of Convocation; and that both Houses, of both provinces, subscribed it, as revised, in the month of December of that year. form of subscription, with the signatures annexed, may be seen in Bishop Kennett's Register. Among the Episcopal signatures are, John Cosin, Bishop of Durham; and Edward Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich. Is it possible to suppose, that either of these men understood the word "unbaptized" to include persons